std.stringbuffer

[Frits van Bommel]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>> The modifying versions should have some distinguishing characteristic 
>> to separate them from the COW versions. I'd say either a different 
>> function name or an extra out-buffer parameter (as long as they still 
>> work if the buffer is the same array as the normal input).
> 
> Yes, the idea to distinguish them with a different name sounds good 
> (names like "doToUpper", maybe?). So that means you agree it should be 
> in the same package? :P

I don't like 'doToUpper', but something like 'makeUpper' could be a good 
convention. That makes it pretty clear they're modifying the input, I think.

I don't particularly care what package they're in, but their names 
should make it clear what they do. Especially if you're working with 
both sets of functions in the same module...


Looking at the Phobos2 std.string docs, I do think some of those 
functions could benefit from at least a const(char)[] overload so 
they'll work with non-invariant parameters too. The ones that don't even 
return string data[1] should probably just replace all invariant 
parameters with const ones.
Of course, for the rest the return type of const overloads could be 
debated. (First question: should they ever return a slice? If not, 
should the return type be mutable or invariant[2]?)


[1]: In particular: inPattern(), size_t count*(), bool is*() and size_t 
column() are the ones I saw.
[2]: It shouldn't be const though, that'd be pointless: returning newly 
allocated memory as const means it's effectively invariant anyway.